Luigi Sturzo and Civil Economy

Journal for Markets and Ethics/Zeitschrift für Marktwirtschaft und Ethik • 6(1) • 2018 DOI: 10.2478/jome-2018-0026

Journal for Markets and Ethics/Zeitschrift für Marktwirtschaft und Ethik

Stefano Zamagni*

University of Bologna, Johns Hopkins University SAIS Europe, Bologna, Italy and Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences

Received January 24 2018; Accepted February 24 2018

Abstract: The paper defends the thesis that a proper understanding of Sturzo’s thought and work can be achieved only within the perspective of the civil economy paradigm. After exposing the main pillars characterizing the civil economy research program, the argument proceeds indicating the reasons why Sturzo did not consider adequate, for a country like Italy, the proposal of the social market economy. The paper concludes suggesting same reasons to explain the fin de non recevoirof the political establishment with respect to Sturzo’s testimony.

Keywords: Luigi Sturzo • Civil economy • Social market economy • Statism • Positive liberty

1. Introduction to flee the country on 24 October 1924, finding exile first Luigi Sturzo’s lot, like that of many great thinkers and in Great Britain and then in the USA. famous figures who were far ahead of their time, was The most surprising aspect of this matter is that one among incomprehension, rejection, and at times Luigi Sturzo continued to be ostracized even after his even scorn. The contemporaries of this famous thinker return to Italy on 27 August 1946, right up to his death from Caltagirone in eastern Sicily were incapable of on 9 August 1959, during what was a completely differ- grasping the truly innovative character of his economic ent period in the history from both cultural and political and social thought; and their inexcusable shortsighted- viewpoints. This “second exile,” as it has been appro- ness prevented them from ever appreciating the true priately termed, was symbolized by the fact that while value of his political vision. Their sterile game of pigeon- Italian Catholics turned for inspiration to the person- holing people means that they failed to grasp the true alist ideas of E. Mounier and J. Maritain following the essence of the man and his ideas. Second World War, completely Ignoring Sturzo’s work. Thus, in the eyes of early 20th-century traditional In 1959, Maritain himself, in his Homage à Don Sturzo, Catholics, Luigi Sturzo was a disconcerting radical to declared the following: “In virtue of his writings of such be kept at a safe distance, while the Catholics on the enormous scope, and of his practical activities. Sturzo other side of the political divide, that is, the followers was a leading historical figure of Italy’s Christian demo- of Romolo Murri, viewed the priest from Caltagirone cratic party. He realized that the Christian democrats as simply an enlightened conservative. On the other (DCs) could not fulfill their task without solid doctrinal hand, beyond the Catholic sphere, Sturzo’s thoughts foundations. Hence his protracted reflections which, fed were equated with insignificant reformism by the social- by a profoundly enlightened religious culture, have pro- ist movement, while the fascist regime saw him as an duced such a wealth of results in the field of political and impending threat – so much so that Sturzo was forced social philosophy, and which in the light of the wisdom

* E-mail: [email protected] 51

of Christianity have established principles justifying the Austrian bourgeoisie’s attraction to Nazism), Walter ideal of justice and fraternity inherent in democracy.”1 Eucken (founder of the review Ordo in 1940), and Several, somewhat divergent explanations have Wilhelm Röpke (the principal exponent of the maxims been proffered for Luigi Sturzo’s personal isolation and of ordoliberalism in political practice). Others have seen for the underestimation of his work. These range from Sturzo as sharing the political views of Luigi Einaudi, jealousy of a person clearly of above-average standing Epicarmo Corbino, Giuseppe Pella, and others and to concern that the acceptance of his thoughts, and in an adversary of Alcide De Gasperi, Giorgio La Pira, particular of his staunch anti-statism and his opposition Amintore Fanfani, etc., who were variously classified as to the government’s policy of providing aid to the South interventionists, statists, or Keynesians. of Italy, could have led to severe criticism of the De If, on the other hand, we adopted the civil economy Gasperi governments’ actions and those of subsequent as our interpretative “beryl” (in the sense adopted by governments and the policy of Enrico Mattei’s ENI Nicolò Cusano3), then we discovered not only that the (Italy’s State Oil & Gas Company). Statements such divergence between Sturzo and La Pira was not so as “since the time of Machiavelli and Luther, the State marked as has been believed up until now but also the has never ceased to pursue its own deification” were argument that Sturzo was the precursor, or at least a certainly not well received by those who back in the great advocate, of the SOME, according to the view- 1930s had already commenced that process of massive point popularized by the Freiburg School, is ground- state intervention in the country’s economy that was to less. Before arguing in support of my thesis, I shall continue up to the late 1980s making Italy one of the briefly explain the basic features of the civil economy most “Soviet-like” Western countries. It should come as paradigm. no surprise, therefore, that when in 1952 Sturzo was nominated senator for life, decided not to be part of the DCs, but joined a cross-party grouping in the Senate. 2. What is civil economy? Without wishing to question the validity of the afore- The civil economy tradition is one rooted in the 15th- mentioned, and other similar, arguments,2 I person- century civil humanism, a tradition that saw its golden ally believe that the main reason why Sturzo has been age in the Italian enlightenment centered on Milan largely forgotten in Italy is one of a cultural nature. This and, in particular, on Naples (Bruni and Zamagni, Civil man was a refined intellectual with a considerable flair Economy, Newcastle u.T. (upon Tyne), Agenda, 2016). for philosophical and political analysis. Thus, it appears While in Scotland, Smith and Hume were formulating rather shortsighted to see him simply as a courageous their principles of political economy, during the same social and political leader. The fact is that the “Sturzo period research was being conducted in civil economy question,” insofar as it specifically concerns economic by Genovesi, Filangieri, and Dragonetti in Naples and issues, can be approached from two different view- by Verri, Beccaria, and Gioja in Milan. It should be points: political economy and civil economy. As far as pointed out that the first university chair in economics in I know, all studies that have dealt with this question to the world was established at Naples University in 1753 date have adopted the political economy model as the and was entitled the “Chair in Civil Economy”; the first key to interpret the writings and work of Luigi Sturzo. holder of that chair was Antonio Genovesi. There are The results of such studies are widely known. In the several similarities between the Scottish School and the view of some scholars, Sturzo was a liberal Catholic Neapolitan–Milanese School: their anti-feudal stance whose ideas converged with those of the social market (with the market seen as a way out of feudal society); economy (SOME) associated with the names of Ludwig their consideration of luxury as a factor of social change, von Mises (who wrote the famous work Liberalismus in without being overly concerned about the “vices” of 1927, in which Manchester liberalism was reinterpreted the consumers of such luxury goods; a considerable from the social viewpoint with the aim of tempering the ability to grasp the cultural change that the growth of trade was producing in Europe; their acknowledgment

1 Cited in Pennisi 2009, p.197. Federico Chabod’s judgement was of the essential role played by trust in the operation of equally as flattering: Chabod believed that the foundation of the a market economy; the “modernity” of their visions of Italian Popular Party in 1919 represented “the most important society and the world. At the same time, however, there political event in 20th-century Italian history” (p.196). 2 For two recent, detailed analyses of these points, see Pagliai 2009 and Palladino 2009: both volumes contain a full bibliography 3 “The beryl is a resplendent, colourless, and transparent stone, regarding the question. Gabriele De Rosa’s biography of Luigi to which is given a concave or convex form, and those who look Sturzo (De Rosa 1977) remains of fundamental importance, while through it succeed in discovering things at first invisible.”De Beryllo, another important work is the essay by Campanini (2001). 1458, in N. Cusano, 2017.

52 Stefano Zamagni

was a profound difference between Scotland (political In the view of Genovesi, Filangieri, and Dragonetti in economy) and Italy (civil economy). Adam Smith, despite Naples, of Verri, Beccaria, and Romagnosi in Milan, acknowledging the fact that human beings possess and in the 20th century of Luigi Sturzo and, to a cer- a natural tendency to be sociable (consisting in their tain degree, of Luigi Einaudi, as well as that of certain sympathy for, and their correspondence of sentiments applied economists such as Rabbeno or Luzzatti, or the with, others), does not consider sociability (i.e., the rela- founder of business economics Gino Zappa (the Italian tionship with others for noninstrumental reasons) to be business economic tradition is another leading expres- an important factor in the operation of markets: “Civil sion of the civil economic school of thought), the mar- society can exist between different people...based on ket, the firm, and the business sphere are also places the consideration of the individual utility, without any inherently characterized by friendship, reciprocity, and form of love or mutual affection” (Theory of Moral Senti- actions performed gratuitously. The civil economy does ments, II.3.2., my italics). not accept the idea, or rather the ideology, which is cur- Indeed, in certain passages of both the Theory of rently taken for granted, according to which the market Moral Sentiments (1759) and the Wealth of Nations is something radically different from the civil sphere, and (1776), Smith – the thinker who formulated the most as such is governed by different principles from those complete version of the political economy paradigm – governing the latter. Advocates of the civil economy see specifically stated that sentiments and benevolent the economy as essentially civil, the market as a place behavior complicate the market mechanism, which he where people share their lives; both the economy and believed would work better if interpersonal relationships the market share the same basic principle, namely that within that market were of a more strictly instrumental of mutual aid. Genovesi’s mutual aid is not the same as nature. Therefore, what is required then is a market sys- mutual benefit of Adam Smith: to obtain a mutual ben- tem so perfect that there is no need for benevolence, efit a contract suffices, whereas to achieve mutual aid that is, the capacity to do good, on the part of anyone you need philia (close friendship) and perhaps agape concerned. In Smith’s view, and in that of the tradition (love; Pabst 2015). which was to subsequently become official economic The civil economy is nowadays considered to be an policy, the market is the means by which to build gen- alternative to the Smithian understanding of the economy uinely social relationships (there can be no civil soci- whereby the market is the only institution really required ety without markets), provided that the market is free for democracy and freedom. The civil economy is a of imposed hierarchical relationships based on status; reminder that while a good society is certainly the result however, the market in itself is not a relational arena. of the market and freedom, there are needs associated The fact that market relationships are impersonal and with the principle of fraternity that cannot be overlooked reciprocally indifferent is not a negative thing in Smith’s nor relegated to the private sphere alone, in particular to view, but rather a civilizing factor: this is the only way philanthropy. At the same time, the civil economy is not that the market can guarantee well-being and growth. on the side of those who challenge the existence of mar- Friendship and market relationships thus appear to kets, who perceive the economic sphere as naturally belong to two very different, separate spheres; indeed, conflicting with the good life, and who consequently call the existence of market relationships in the public sphere for a reduction in growth and the withdrawal of the “eco- (and only in this sphere) guarantees that friendships and nomic” from communal living. Rather, the civil economy social relationships in the private sphere are authentic, proposes a multifaceted humanism where the market is freely chosen, and unconnected to a person’s social not opposed or “controlled,” but is seen as a civil arena status. If a beggar goes to the butcher’s and begs, he on a par with others, that is, as one aspect of the public can never be the butcher’s friend outside of the market sphere; as something that if conceived and experienced place. If, on the other hand, a former beggar walks into as an open environment, also on the basis of the prin- the butcher’s shop, or into the off-license, to buy his/her ciples of reciprocity and gratuity, can contribute toward products in the evening that former beggar may meet the construction of a civitas. his suppliers at the pub in a more dignified manner and The core concern of the civil economy’s plan could perhaps become their friend. In Smith’s view, and in that be summed up in the expression: the economy as if of the official tradition of economic science, the market people mattered. To grasp the meaning of this con- is civilization but not friendship, neither is it noninstru- ception of civil economy, just think of the two opposing mental reciprocity or fraternity (Bruni and Sugden 2008). ways of viewing the relationship between the economic Civil economy scholars radically disagree on the sphere (which for convenience we may call the market aforementioned aspects, which are of key impor- in the broadest sense of the term) and the social sphere tance to contemporary economic practice and theory. (which we may identify with the sphere of solidarity).

53 Luigi Sturzo and Civil Economy

On the one hand, there are those who see the extension embodiments of the third-sector organizations. Such a of the market and the principle of efficiency as the solu- vision is no longer tenable for at least two specific rea- tion to all of society’s ills; on the other hand, there are sons (Bruni and Zamagni 2009). those who see the market’s advance as a form of “desert- First, in the age of globalization, the “two phases” ification” of society and thus try to protect themselves logic (first enterprises produce wealth, and then the by establishing restrictions and creating counterweights state intervenes to redistribute that wealth fairly) consti- to the market’s force. The former consider the market as tuting the basis of the relationship between the economy basically an “a-social” entity: from this viewpoint, which and society (think of the Welfare State) no longer works, marks a return to certain forms of liberal ideology, the since the underlying foundation of that logic – the rela- “social” is distinguished by market mechanisms that tionship between wealth and territory – no longer exists. are seen as ethically and socially neutral. The market Consequently, enterprises are required to pay particu- is required to be efficient and is tasked with creating as lar attention to the social sphere during the course of much wealth as is possible. Solidarity, on the other hand, their everyday activities. This is what is meant by the starts where the market ends, since it concerns estab- movement of ideas underlying “corporate social respon- lishing the criteria by which the wealth produced is to be sibility” (Zamagni 2013). The “Charter on Shared Social shared out, that is, with the redistribution of wealth. Responsibilities” approved by the Council of Europe on The complete contrast to this vision is the other 22 January 2014 is clear proof of this. Second, there is approach, which basically sees the market as an anti- the “displacement” effect. If the market, and the economy social entity. This view harks back to Karl Marx and K. in general, equates simply with instrumental exchange, Polyani and is currently adopted in various forms of then this results in one of the greatest paradoxes of our alternative economy on show (the solidarity economy, time. “Bad money drives out good” states Gresham’s the social economy, the communitarian economy and so Law, one of the oldest and most famous laws of eco- on). It is characterized by a conception of the market as nomics. This mechanism has enormous consequences a place of exploitation, where the strong bully the weak and operates every time that intrinsic motivation (such and thus as a threat to society as such. In Polyani’s as reciprocity and gratuitousness) encounters extrinsic words, “The market advances over the desertification of motivations (such as the profit motive): the bad ones society.” Hence, the appeal to “protect society” from the drive out the good ones. Exchange based purely on the market, based on the argument that truly human quali- pursuit of personal interests, destroys other forms of ties (i.e., friendship, trust, giving, noninstrumental reci- human relationship; as a consequence, the market – left procity, and love) would be destroyed by the advance to its own devices – develops and “erodes” the basic of a market culture. This latter vision tends to see the premise of its very existence, namely trust and the pro- economic sphere and the market as dehumanizing pensity to cooperate with others. mechanisms capable of destroying the social capital In fact, all societies need to appeal to three different, that is indispensable for all truly human coexistence and complementary principles to develop in a harmonious sustainable economic growth. manner and thus be capable of ensuring a future: the The conception of the market–society relationship exchange of equivalents, the redistribution of wealth, that characterizes the civil economy differs radically and reciprocity. All societies are familiar with this “triad” from the aforementioned two visions. The central idea of principles, even though only two of these principles of the civil economy is to experience human sociality have been incorporated each time into the models of within the framework of normal economic life, in other social order that have succeeded one another over the words, neither before, nor after, nor on the fringes of course of recent centuries with unsatisfactory results in that life. It indicates us that principles other than profit every case. Indeed, what happens if one of the three and the exchange of equivalents can be accommodated principles is absent? If we eliminate reciprocity, we within the framework of economic activity. This undoubt- get a model of social order based on the state-market edly supersedes the first conception of the market as dichotomy mentioned earlier. If we eliminate the redistri- an ethically neutral space based exclusively on the prin- bution principle, the result is compassionate capitalism ciple of the exchange of equivalents, since it is the eco- (for example, American-style welfare capitalism). The nomic sphere itself which, depending on the presence market acts as a lever of progress and as such has to or otherwise of these other principles, becomes either be left to operate unhindered, according to the advo- civil or uncivil. Moreover, it also supersedes the second cates of neoliberalism. In this way, the market generates conception of the market, which sees gifts and reciproc- wealth, and the “wealthy” offer their “charity” to the poor, ity as restricted to other moments or spheres of social “utilizing” civil society organizations (the charities and life, and which to this day is still rooted in a variety of foundations). On the other hand, the elimination or the

54 Stefano Zamagni

underestimation of the exchange of equivalents leads multiplicative, rather than additive, manner. This means to present and past forms of collectivism and commu- that all three principles must operate simultaneously nitarianism, where people live(d) in the belief that con- if virtuous circles are to be created. There can be no tracts are unnecessary (at the cost of devastating levels trade-off between them, for example, reciprocity cannot of wastage and inefficiency, however). Well, the central be renounced to create more room for the exchange of theme of civil economy is the pursuit of a social order equivalents, or vice versa. In other words, a basic tenet where the three principles may coexist, that is, where of civil economy is that of selecting as its ultimate pur- they may find genuine room for their actual implementa- pose the common good – which is the multiplication of tion, contaminating one another reciprocally. individual goods – and not the total good – which on the To conclude and sum up then, the civil economy is other hand is the sum of individual goods, as Bentham’s a way of perceiving economic reality based on three utilitarianism imposes. fundamental theses. The first thesis is the rejection of the nonoverlapping magisteria (NOMA) principle first expressed by Richard Whately, the influential Oxford 3. The civil scaffolding of Sturzo’s University economist, in 1829. According to the NOMA economic philosophy principle, ethical rules would have just as much an impact on economic science as they have on the laws of As previously mentioned, I argue here that Don Sturzo’s physics. In other words, the economic sphere should be thought basically belongs to the civil economy school. kept separate from the ethical and political spheres with Even though his writings contain no mention of this which it shares no common ground. Indeed, the infiltra- expression, the fact is that his cultural background – like tion into the market area of values and rules originating that of another great forgotten thinker, Antonio Rosmini – from the other two areas could endanger the pursuit of and above all his insight into the real world are those the market’s ultimate objective, namely that of achiev- of the civil economy. There is one significant thing, ing efficiency. Therefore, if economic discourse wishes however, that could undermine this argument. Matteo to gain scientific status (in the neopositivist sense), it Liberatore, from the Jesuit publication Civiltà Cattolica must cut those ties – the umbilical cord in the words of and one of the principal drafters of Rerum Novarum Whately – that for centuries had united it to the worlds of (1891), in 1889 published the Principi di economia ethics and politics. Of course, the civil economy cannot politica: trattato (principles of political economy: a accept such a principle of separation – which is still the treatise), a treatise of neoclassical economic the- dominant view – for the simple reason that the object ory that reflected the thoughts of the Palermo-born of the economic problem remains that of human being Francesco Ferrara, Maffeo Pantaleoni, and Nicola in its entirety. Thus, economics and ethics are intrinsi- Colajanni. Sturzo was invited to give a series of eco- cally related, each reflected in the mirror image of the nomics lectures to the Caltagirone seminary in 1900, other. Economics must certainly be distinguished from, and on that occasion he adopted Liberatore’s work and rendered autonomous from, ethics and politics, but as his course book. It should be pointed out that the it cannot be separated from them. Jesuit, who hailed from the town of Salerno just like The second thesis is that an important task of eco- Antonio Genovesi, did not even mention the latter’s nomic enquiry is to contribute toward the design of work Lezioni di Economia Civile (lessons in civil society’s institutional arrangements, which cannot be economy), published in Naples in 1765 and the inspira- considered an externally established given, as if it was, tion for several sections of Adam Smith’s “The Wealth an objective reality. In other words, the civil econo- of Nations.” The current paper is not the appropriate mist cannot simply seek the optimal allocation of the place for a full rational reconstruction of Sturzo’s cogni- resources available in compliance with a given set of tive map, which would point out to the unsubstantiated rules of the game. This is so since not all (economic character of the interpretation according to which and political) institutions are equally capable of facili- Sturzo lent heavily toward the economic mainstream tating the obtainment of the common good, and thus a of his time. I shall merely offer a few brief observations choice must be made of those that best ensure soci- which in my opinion suffice to negate this reductionist ety’s civil progress. This progress depends both on indi- reading of Sturzo’s work. vidual behavior and on the types of institutions that are “The modern error – one reads in Politica e morale – selected. consists in separating and counterposing Humanism and Finally, the third thesis is that the three principles of Christianity: Humanism has been turned into a divine market order – the exchange of equivalents, the redis- entity, while the Christian religion has been seen as a tribution, and reciprocity – must be interrelated in a private affair, a matter of individual conscience, or even

55 Luigi Sturzo and Civil Economy

a sect... We need to re-establish the union between Sturzo showed that he fully understood the sig- the Human and the Christian.”4 Sturzo opposed the nificance of this paradox when he pointed out that view of the world underlying the economic mainstream the market requires the equality of all participants, of his time, due to his sincere, convinced acceptance but at the same time it generates unequal results of the Catholic social doctrine. In particular, he could thereafter. Therefore, when the equality-of-being not accept the idea of historical development having diverges too much, and for too long, from the equality- a purpose that only science can fully achieve, or the of-having, it is the market mechanism itself that is fal- idea of a purely instrumental rationality deriving from tering and producing perverse results. In this regard, axiological individualism. Neither could he accept the Economia e morale, published in March 1947, reads belief that the spirit of capitalism had to be protected as follows: through the potestas (power) of the state. However, all of this did not prevent him from looking for a compro- “It is rightly claimed that the specific aim of the economy mise, in historical terms and not at the level of principles, is profit, but in order to evaluate the significance of such between Catholic ethics and the spirit of capitalism and profit, its meaning and character need to be specified. between the energy that capitalism can release, and the The profit that is the purpose of the economy isofa ethical–institutional framework that Catholicism offers. social character... The purpose of the economy is never The point is that Sturzo was well aware of the fact that individual, but always social, because the individual while the market economy is the genus, capitalism is alone, operating alone, does not, and cannot, exist; the only one species of that genus and as such may evolve individual is social.... This is the point at which morality and mutate morphogenetically: this can happen in rela- affects the economy, when individuals ask themselves tion to the prevailing system of values in a given culture what the grounds for, and the limits on, the use of and in a specific historical context. goods are. Theft is by nature utilitarian, of course; the One should not forget that the context in which Luigi thief wants to be able to achieve enjoyment of a good Sturzo’s thoughts took shape was that of modernism by the quickest route possible; if the economy were characterized by antireligious secularization and positiv- individualistic, he would have solved the problems of ist rationalization. It was because of his awareness of the the squaring of the circle ... His [the thief’s] economy is unacceptable limitations of this conception that Sturzo bankrupt because the moral basis on which it rests is understood that to guarantee the sustainability of a vital bankrupt.”5 market economy values need to be continually imported into that economy from outside the market itself. Sturzo You do not need to be an expert analyst to understand entered politics following an intense period of social the true depth of Sturzo’s anti-(Benthamian) utilitarian action subsequent to publication of the encyclical let- stance and to realize just how far removed Sturzo’s ter Rerum Novarum by Pope Leo XIII and as a result thought is from the fundamental propositions of welfare of Sturzo’s close acquaintance with figures from the economics of wealth, the true pillars of liberal economic Catholic Church’s social movement, such as Giuseppe thought. Indeed, in the introduction to his Premesse Toniolo and Romolo Murri. Thus I would argue that, with della Politica published in 1945, Giorgio La Pira wrote hindsight, Sturzo anticipated what is today known as the that to design a new political architecture of Christian paradox of Böckenförde (2007), according to which the inspiration, both Maritain and Don Sturzo would need to secular liberal state exists on the basis of premises that be involved (Pagliai 2009, p.30). If you have the patience it itself cannot guarantee. The paradox consists of the to read Per una architettura cristiana dello Stato by La idea that the liberal state can only exist if the freedom, Pira (1954) with an open mind, you will discover not only that it promises and guarantees for its citizens, is part of the degree to which the Mayor of Florence was intellec- the moral constitution of individuals and of those social tually indebted to Sturzo but also, more importantly, that structures pursuing the common good. If, on the con- the two agreed on the distinction between the principle trary, the liberal state itself attempts to guarantee such of statehood (to be welcomed) and that of statism (to be regulation, by availing itself of coercive powers, then it condemned). stops being liberal and ends up falling foul of that totality A passage revealing Sturzo’s conception of civil that it purports to free itself from. economy can be found in the paper entitled Sociale, parola magica (the magic word “social”) published in the Italian newspaper Il Giornale d’Italia on 26 August 1958. 4 Sturzo 1972, p.130. Note that the humanism that Sturzo referred to In arguing against Keynes and Beveridge, whose ideas, in his passage is not the civil humanism of the early 15th century, but the “uncivil” humanism of the late 15th century (Bruni and Zamagni 2009). 5 Quoted in Palladino 2009, pp.158-160 (author’s translation).

56 Stefano Zamagni

in Sturzo’s view, could work only in the English-speaking creates, through a bottom-up, endogenous process, world, he wrote: those relationships of mutual trust without which the market cannot function; the state certainly does not do “Today they [his Italian political rivals] go to any length this. This is why statism is an “evil beast” in the famous to give the impression that they’ve discovered the words of Luigi Sturzo. Welfare State, because they’ve read Lord Beveridge’s Basically, Sturzo’s philosophy is underpinned by book, articles in the Esprit, a few pamphlets by Maritain, his conception of civil society as a vital world found and God knows that they haven’t become imbued with on two essential principles: the social principle and a the ideas of a socialism that eats away at the bones of universalist orientation. If only the first of these two certain young Catholics who discover new ideas they principles were to operate, then civil society would were unaware of under Fascism, or that they believed extend no further than the confines of the private could be found in the corporatism of the one-party State. sphere. In fact, the social principle is essentially the The Welfare State existed before it was discovered, principle of self-organization which, as such, does not because the pursuit of the common good is a function possess the force required to put universalistic prin- of the State.”6 ciples into practice. Sociality, that is, the propensity to live together, is not a defining characteristic of human Sturzo’s opposition to both laissez-faire politics and stat- beings, as it is also one shared by animals. Therefore, ism was one that he shared with La Pira, who also raged what lends civil society its public value – but not its against the mysticism of the state which he declared to political value of course – is the second factor, the be “the most serious heresy of our time.” Of course, if universalist orientation. one remains within the confines of the liberalist–statist According to this conception, civil society, as one of dichotomy – as the paradigm of the political economy the two constituent parts of the public sphere, contrib- implies – then Sturzo can clearly be classified in the lib- utes not only to enrich social dynamics but also, above eralist camp, while La Pira would be closer to the statist all, to avert two dangerous risks which would have camp. This is not the case, however, if one adopts the opposing consequences but which are based on similar triadic scheme characteristic of the civil economy, which foundations. On the one hand, there is the risk of social sees the market, the state and intermediary social bod- privatism (the individual’s well-being is perceived to be ies acting together, on the basis of subsidiarity, in view in opposition to, or at the very least independent of, the of the universal common good. Thus, the differences well-being of others); on the other hand, there is the risk between these two thinkers, which certainly remain, of totalist statism (whereby state policy tries to defend were differences of degree rather than of principle. itself against intermediate entities, in the name of the In other words, if reciprocity (and thus the principle of national or collective interest). gift, which is the prime mover of reciprocity) is removed from the market’s operation, and consequently the economic question becomes one giant prisoner’s dilemma, 4. Sturzo and the SOME then it is clear that in the adverse phases of the eco- Could it be argued that Sturzo was a supporter of, if not nomic cycle there is no other way of interrupting the vir- exactly a believer in, the SOME, that is, that specific tuous circle than by having recourse to the power of the form of liberalism known as the liberalism of the rule, as state. The state steps in to fill the void left by the general opposed to the liberalism of the act8 championed by the lack of trust, through its implementation of specific pub- Manchester school of laissez-faire liberalism? I person- lic spending programs. Roosevelt’s actions were a good ally do not believe that such an argument can be made. example of this: despite not being a convinced Keynes- In this regard, I would like to summarize the essential ian in any way, in his first presidential speech in March characteristics of the SOME, an expression originally 1933 Roosevelt, in an attempt to restart the economy coined by Alfred Müller-Armack (on this subject, see that had been halted by the 1929 economic crisis, had Felice 2013). In the opinion of Walter Eucken (1891- to promise that the State would personally ensure that 1950), one of the thinkers who forged the conceptual it “...put people to work. ...[this task] can be accom- framework of the SOME, the economic system needs plished in part by direct recruiting by the Government to be guided starting from certain “formative principles” itself.”7 However, it is the practice of reciprocity that establishing the nature and essence of the market

6 Quoted in Pagliai 2009, p.63 (my italics). 8 The author obtains the distinction between the liberalism of the rules 7 Roosevelt 1957, p.92. For example, through the creation of the Civil and the liberalism of the act, by analogy, from that between the utili- Works Administration, of the Federal Emergency Relief Administra- tarianism of the rules and the utilitarianism of the act first introduced tion, of the Works Progress Administration, and so on. by the Oxford economist Roy Harrod in 1936.

57 Luigi Sturzo and Civil Economy

economy and from “regulatory principles” establishing not want to know about comanagement and conduct the manner in which the economy is to operate. The monitoring or the exchange of information among eco- former include the primacy of monetary policy, designed nomic players, which are all fundamental aspects of the to guarantee the stability of the currency as well as the SOME model. Even Pasquale Saraceno was not at all opening of markets to free competition, the safeguarding keen on the idea of worker participation. It should be of ownership rights, press freedom, and the continuity noted that the “management committees” (Consigli di of operation of the state’s economic policy. The regu- Gestione) provided by a Decree issued in April 1945 by latory principles, on the other hand, concern the fight the Ntaional Liberation Commettee for Norther Italy – against the formation of natural monopolies together which was not ratified by the allied military government – with income policy designed to guarantee the fair and referred to in Article 46 of the Italian Constitution, distribution of resources, state intervention aimed at cor- were never instituted by law following the abandonment recting various negative externalities through a system of the Morandi project by the then prime minister Alcide of taxes and subsidies, and governmental intervention De Gasperi. On the other hand, the three main political in the labor field, which cannot be left to the dictates of parties at the time openly manifested their distrust of pri- market laws. A similar approach was taken by Wilhelm vate enterprise: the Italian Communist Party (PCI) and Röpke – one of the most influential thinkers behind the the Italian Socialist Party (PSI), for obvious ideological SOME, whose work civitas humana (1947) called for a reasons, and the left wing of the DCs due to their per- “strong state” capable of guaranteeing the security and ception of capitalism as a social order that was contrary “intelligent policing of the markets” (sic!), given that the to the Church’s social doctrine. At the same time, Sturzo markets are themselves incapable of self-government clearly could not commit himself to the model of SOME or self-adjustment (regarding Röpke, see the important adopted in the English-speaking world (and rightly so). It work by Franco 2016). is generally acknowledged that the distinction between Basically, the SOME is an economic model based the two models lies in the different ways that entrepre- on the state-market dyad that tasks the market with neurs liaise and cooperate to control wages, encourage producing wealth, and the state with establishing the innovation, and favor adjustment to changing market rules of the economic game, ensuring that those rules conditions. On the basis of the civil economy paradigm, are complied with and distributing wealth to the poorer what Sturzo had in mind was a civil market economy classes in accordance with the principle of equity. In fact, founded on the state-market-organized civil society civil society is at the service of the state in this model. triad. The latter element, however, was conceived as The SOME has been the only Western model capable of pursuing productive functions rather than mere redis- competing with the laissez-faire model. It has permitted tributive functions. the achievement of solidarity and social cohesion that Moreover, while the philosophical basis of the has made Germany great. The pillars of this model are SOME consists of the deontological ethics of Kant, a strong state capable of earning the respect of others Sturzo’s philosophical mold is a personalism deriving (e.g., when it demands compliance with anti-monopoly from Thomism. There is not sufficient room here to regulations), and the idea that solidarity should go hand elucidate the difference between these two positions: to hand with efficiency. “The state’s role in the social suffice it to say that from the deontological viewpoint, market economy” – written by Antiseri in the paper “But what is just prevails over what is good, to the point the social market economy is not dead” – is not sim- that fiat iustitia, pereat mundus (literally: let justice be ply that of night watchman, as it is in economic liberal- done, though the world may perish; I. Kant); from the ism, but that of a strong State capable of preventing the personalist perspective, on the other hand, the good assault on the market’s operation by monopolies and should prevail over the just, as Aristotle had already rent-seekers” (Antiseri 2017, p.59). affirmed. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that Well, with his profound knowledge of Italy and of in the aforementioned paper, Sociale, parola magica, events during the tragic experience of fascism, Sturzo Sturzo declared that: had many reasons to believe that the model would have been taken, in practice, to signify a reformulation of the “The use of the term ‘social economy’ rather than corporatist social order, given the ample, invasive role ‘political economy’, favoured by certain economists, is that the model afforded to the state (indeed, it should not a recent thing: such economists believe the political be remembered that SOME model was adopted by the economy to be based on market freedoms, while the German CDU [DCs] in 1949, and subsequently by social social economy is based on state intervention... The democrats [SPD] in 1959). On the one hand, the Gen- improvement that is referred to when using the misused, eral Confederation of Italian Industry (Confindustria) did equivocal word ‘social’ is not achieved through the

58 Stefano Zamagni

dissipation of State funding in unproductive activities, of the market and true freedom of choice for consumers. but through an increase in general well-being, in All of this is not present in the SOME. Basically, the nec- productivity, in the personal, private initiative and vitality essary requirements of a SOME are too similar to those of each citizen... If the socialists fail to comprehend called for, to establish fairness, by John Rawl’s “Theory this, the reason for this is their ‘anti-social’ theories; but of justice” published in 1971 (the first formulations of the fact that certain Catholics also fail to understand it, which, however, go back 15 years earlier), for them to be priests included, appears absurd to those who know that accepted with all his heart by a figure like Sturzo. the basis of Christianity is the defeat of egoism and the The foregoing argument may be generalized triumph of justice and human fraternity.”9 considering the two prevailing views taken by political philosophers regarding the way of seeing the relation- Finally, there is a third circumstance that would point to ship between political society and civil society. Originally, Sturzo’s nonalignment with the SOME approach. This these two expressions were considered synonymous. factor is the considerable room that Sturzo affords – in Aristotle’s Koinonìa politiké corresponded, in fact, to the full accordance with the civil economy message – to civil civilis societas of which Cicero spoke in De Repubblica. society’s organizations on the economic level as such, It was only from the 17th century that the meanings of the rather than simply on the cultural and political levels. two concepts were distinguished; this distinction remains This is demonstrated, first and foremost, by the man’s to the present day. This separation of political society from own biography: Sturzo was a leader of social Catholi- civil and society has led to the emergence of two different cism who worked for, and concerned himself with, the approaches. In the words of the famous English political creation of rural banks, the setting up of manufacturing scientist “M. Oakeshott,” the choice is between politics and workers’ cooperatives, the establishment of com- as “enterprise association” and politics as “civil associa- munity foundations, and the fierce defense of munici- tion.” The first conception, which goes back to Thomas palism and regionalism as a means of achieving the Hobbes and to some degree presupposes an organismic independence of local areas and communities, without vision of society, sees politics as that activity designed involving the disintegration of the nation. In this, his to guide society in a given direction. Thus, the political experience as deputy mayor of Caltagirone proved to sphere coincides perfectly with the political sphere and be of significant importance. the latter with the Leviathan State. In this vision of politics, Therefore, why exactly did Luigi Sturzo give such political parties are comparable to the management of a importance to entities operating indeed within the large company that has to try and render the demands of market and following a business logic, but without any various stakeholders compatible with one another. Civil profit motive, that is, to what we now refer to as “nonprofit” society, on the other hand, is the sphere of particularistic organizations? The answer is that Sturzo was fully aware interests which can indeed be expressed freely, provided that the capitalistic market does not “exude” competi- they do not hinder the work, or question the steering role, tion, but tends naturally toward monopoly. Adam Smith of the government, the ultimate expression of the univer- had foreseen this phenomenon in his Wealth of Nations sal. The second conception, on the other hand, harks (1776), when he observed that two hands, rather than back to the liberal-democratic political ideal championed one, were needed to get the market to work: one invisible by John Locke. This vision does not accept that the public hand operating by means of that mechanism known as sphere is completely taken up by political parties, which the heterogenesis of ends and one visible hand operat- are certainly essential actors, but not the only ones, on ing through public powers. The great insight offered by a stage where there is also room for social actors. In Sturzo’s economic thought was that the most effective other words, this vision does not accept that social actors form of defense against the risks of economic monopoly are subsumed under political parties, for the simple rea- was not state intervention, but the pluralism of enter- son that from the personalist perspective, people are prise, that is, economic biodiversity. According to Sturzo, capable of socializing even before they subscribe to the the market should comprise capitalistic undertakings, social contract. social undertakings, cooperatives, and public benefit What are the consequences of these two visions companies, all operating on a level playing field without of politics for the purposes of the current discourse? the legislative-institutional framework favoring one form First, they entail different interpretations of the principle or another. It is the competition between different forms of subsidiarity. While politics as “enterprise association” of enterprise, and not just between enterprises of the favors negative subsidiarity, consisting in preventing same kind, that guarantees both the proper functioning freedoms being removed (never deprive lesser social units of their autonomy), politics as “civil association” 9 Cited in Palladino 2009, pp.130-132 (author’s translation). on the other hand places the emphasis on positive

59 Luigi Sturzo and Civil Economy

subsidiarity, consisting in a duty to help, putting the 5. By way of conclusion social sphere at the service of individuals. In the first case, subsidiarity is, in practice, a governmental tech- “Roses have thorns and silver fountains mud” nique, while in the second case it is a principle of social (W. Shakespeare, Sonnet XXXV). I believe that Shake- order. Another important consequence is the feasibility speare’s words aptly sum up the life and times of Luigi or otherwise of adopting the most important practices of Sturzo. All great ideas are subject to the phenomenon deliberative democracy. These practices are all rooted of the heterogenesis of ends, and great men often in the idea of reaching the most important decisions – fall victim to incomprehension and misrepresentation. such as those regarding local government, large-scale We know that memory is essential if ideas are to hit infrastructures, and environmental protection – by the heights, since memory is the permanence of the involving all parties concerned, or their representa- past, capable of guiding us forward. It is not true to say tives, on the basis of the provision of due information that thought moves more freely in a vacuum. Without and opportunities for dialog (it should be noted here memory, thought tends to uncritically repeat the same that deliberative democracy is the opposite of participa- mistakes; as in the case of those who, although acting tory democracy: the former requires a series of well- in good faith, are prepared to put at risk the common organized intermediate bodies; the latter only requires good of the civitas to see their own point of view prevail. well-informed individuals). Clearly, only politics as “civil In this regard, the following aphorism of David Hume association” can give rise to all those institutions repre- comes to mind: “It is not against reason that I should senting a necessary precondition for popular participa- prefer the destruction of half the world to the pricking of tion of the deliberative kind. The alternative conception my little finger.” This is the outcome of many individu- of politics as “enterprise association” may at the very alisms and group egoisms that have sadly character- most ensure involvement through consultation and the ized the political experience of Italy’s Catholics from the submission of petitions (e.g., as happens in a referen- postwar years to the current day. dum); however, it is clear that it cannot avert the risk As we all know, great works are not achieved “in” time of demophobia (the irrational fear of crowds). As we but “for” time. History has shown that Etienne Gilson, a know, there are many ways of interpreting the concept friend and admirer of Maritain, was right when he wrote of ochlophobia. The most famous of these is the tradi- the following to Maritain on 29 January 1953: “Dear tional oligarchical way, which is no longer fashionable. friend, I think we worry too much about our failures ... A more refined mode in the current-day societies is that Whether you know it or not, you are one of the greats, of J. Schumpeter’s elitist-competitive model, accord- and you will never be forgiven for that. You’ll pay above ing to which political decisions should be taken by the all for this fact” (Gilson and Maritain 1991, p.189). I think appointed elites, since they alone can guarantee effi- that the same thing could be said of Luigi Sturzo, albeit ciency. Thus, what are required are, on the one hand, mutatis mutandis. The main message that this Catho- electoral laws of a majoritarian nature sanctioning the lic thinker from Caltagirone has for today’s politicians is distinction between useful votes and useless votes, that alliances, rather than contract, social, or otherwise, and on the other hand, intermediate bodies that cannot lie at the center of political action. The term “alliance” undermine governability. should be conceived of as indicating a frontier defining It is interesting to return to the prophetic words the common identity of those who come together in the of Jacques Maritain, who set out in his famous work alliance. A frontier is different from a boundary: while the “Man and the State,” to explain the difference between latter closes, the former opens. A boundary is a demar- political society and civil society: “The people is the cation line separating those within from those outside. A multitude of human persons united by a mutual friend- frontier, on the other hand, is a transit and stopover area ship for the common good.... who constitute a politi- along a route where change is experienced. This is why cal society or the body politic. The people is not for an alliance postulates diversity, which is not the same the State. The State is for the people.” (Maritain 2003, thing as difference. In fact, those who come together p.29). In Maritain’s view, the aforementioned distinc- to form an alliance do so not to build walls, but to con- tion is necessary to “avert the risk of degeneration in struct bridges between all those who pursue the same agreeing on everything…the religious authorities for ends, even if their points of departure differ. Sturzo was the entire Church, the State for the entire body poli- fully aware that while the political theories and practices tic. At the same time, the State tends to assign itself based on the notion of the social contract are certainly a specific common good, that is, its own preservation capable of accounting for social life, at the same time, and growth, separate ... from the common good that is they cannot explain why it is good that people live in a its ultimate purpose” (Maritain 2003, p.17). society and why it is good to apply the provisions of law

60 Stefano Zamagni

to ensure that the grounds of the civilitas are preserved I would like to end here by citing a passage from John in time. Sturzo was a true master in this sense. Ruskin that has become a classic of the social sciences: The civil economy line of thought – a typical Italian “At a severe crisis, when lives in multitudes, and wealth line of thought – that Sturzo proved capable of inter- in masses, are at stake, the political economists are preting and revitalizing, sees cultural differences as an helpless-practically mute; no demonstrable solution of opportunity for harmony rather than conflict. Industrial the difficulty can be given by them, such as may convince society has pursued and achieved the homologation or calm the opposing parties” (Unto This Last, 1862). and standardization first of products and then of cul- Perhaps, this was the passage that Vilfredo Pareto was tural models. Postindustrial society, on the other hand, thinking of when in a letter to Maffeo Pantaleoni dated exalts and favors differences. However, if those differ- 30 April 1896, he wrote: “Each day I’m increasingly con- ences are not duly channeled, they are transformed into vinced that there is no more meaningless study than that systemic inefficiencies. Laws and contracts are no lon- of political economics. Tell me: if that science had never ger sufficient, even when well designed, to guarantee a been studied, would we be in a worse position than we social order capable of meeting the news challenges. currently are in?.. All our political economy is nothing What is required is the utilization of the resources of more than empty talk”. Of course, if the great economist homo reciprocans, because homo economicus, with the Pareto, and above all Pantaleoni, had understood the best will in the world, is incapable of resolving any of key message of the civil economy and had refrained from the major social problems of our age. Antonio Genovesi ostracizing it with all their energy (and all their academic had understood as much well before his time, when in power), then they would certainly not have reached such his work Lezioni di Economia Civile (Lessons on Civil a cynical conclusion, and the study of economics would Economy – 1765), he wrote homo homini natura amicus probably have taken a very different course, one that bet- in clear contrast to Hobbes’ homo homini lupus. ter serves the cause of integral human development.

References

Antiseri D., Ma l’economia sociale di mercato non è Prouvost G. (Ed.), 1991, Librairie Philosophieque, morta, Vita e Pensiero, 5, 2017. Vrin, Paris, 1991. Böckenförde E.W., Diritto naturale e secolarizzazione, La Pira G., Per una architettura cristiana dello Stato, Rome, 2007. Libreria Editrice Fiorentina, Florence, 1954. Bruni L., Sugden R., Fraternity: why the market need Liberatore M., Principi di economia politica: trattato, not be a morally free zone, Econ Philos, 24 (1), Befani, Rome, 1889. 35-64, 2008. Maritain J., L’uomo e lo Stato, Marietti, Genoa, 2003. Bruni L., Zamagni S., The Civil Economy, Newcastle Mises L.V., Liberalismus, Verlag von Gustav Fischer, u.T., Agenda, 2016 Jena, 1927. Bruni L., Zamagni S. (Eds.), Dizionario di Economia Pabst A., Political economy of virtue: Genovesi’s civil Civile, Città Nuova, Rome, 2009. economy alternative to modern economic thought, Campanini G., Il pensiero politico di Luigi Sturzo, International Rev Econ, 14, 2015. Sciascia, Rome, 2001. Pagliai L., Per il bene comune: poteri pubblici e eco- de Cusa Nicolai, Opera omnia, (ed.by Ernst Hoffmann nomia nel pensiero di G. La Pira, Ed. Polistampa, et al.), Amburgo, Felix Meiner, 1932-2006, vol. 1, Florence, 2009. p.267. Palladino G. (Ed.), Il pensiero economico di Luigi Sturzo, De Rosa G., Luigi Sturzo, Utet, Turin, 1977. Il Sole 24 Ore, Milan, 2009. Felice F., Istituzioni, Persona, e Mercato, Soveria Man- Pennisi M., Fede e impegno politico in Luigi Sturzo, La nelli, Rubettino, 2013. Società, 2, 197, 2009. Franco G., Economia senza etica? Il contributo di Wil- Roosevelt F.D., In: Rauch B. (Ed.), The Roosevelt helm Röpke all’etica economica e al pensiero soci- Reader, Winston, New York, 92, 1957. ale Cristiano, Soveria Mannelli, Rubettino, 2016. Sturzo L., Politica e morale. Coscienza e politica, Genovesi A., In: Perna M.L. (Ed.), Lezioni di commercio Zanichelli, Bologna, 1972. o sia di economia civile, Napoli, 1765-1767, 2005. Zamagni S., Impresa responsabile e mercato civile, Il Gilson E., Maritain J., Correspondance 1923-1971, In: Mulino, Bologna, 2013.